The number of EOs per President is largely irrelevant. What they are used for should be the focus. In the past their use was for mostly mundane items as well as emergency response. See 9-11, Covid, etc…. Obama amped up the legislative use of EOs. Trump and Biden have followed that lead. It is what it is.
It’s not how many in raw number, it’s the numbers with huge impacts that should be passed by Congress instead. Nixon’s pardon was an executive order and counts towards that raw score tally you cite. Totally different than hundreds of billions borrowed and spent to keep campaign promises.
Edit: I'm really tired of repeatedly being interrupted with the site giving me problems. It kept going to a Awww Snap Reload screen every 15 or 20s. I'd have to hit the back arrow, then the front arrow, then the refresh circle every time it did this. I had to copy it over and over to make sure I did have to redo large sections of it. Then I went to MS Word to compose. Between the problems it was having, and me having to adapt, I'm not sure if the site did it or I did it, but there were several former edits of paragraphs with present edits of paragraphs repeated. If you don't mind, reread this from the start. My apologies with the
hassle._____________________________
I'm tired of writing, tired of editing. I'm gonna leave this at one proofread/edit.(I figure you'll get the gist of most of what I'm trying to say.)
Of course it doesn't analyze all of a President's EO's for constitutional validity. That # only gives you an idea about whether that president is going crazy with EO's. Bush did a few things that seemed to step slightly outside the constitutional bounds of his presidency, depending on the analyst who was looking at his actions. A number of those things were based on emergency needs, and related to warrants for terrorists. Those Fisa regulations could be abused for normal citizens was one of the arguments.
Bush broke some of those boundaries. Then congress began blocking every action President Obama wanted to put through, because Republican congressmen became obstinate to his wishes, because that suited their desires, and the public seemed more open to letting them get away with that.(A lot of that was based on the increasing popularity and divisiveness of Fox news. That popularity, to the networks lack of a bipartisan nature of compromise in their broadcasts, showed the public's approval of that type of action or inaction by congress on the Republican side.)
That opened that up to congressional actions towards seemingly all future presidents in retaliation for the president before them. It called out boundaries of any bipartisan efforts with any sense of compromise, to be thrown out with the bathwater, by members of congress on both sides. You did it with approval in the past, so now as a member of congress, I'm going to do it with my approval from the public. And every body including the media, including members of governance at all levels, and regrettably the majority o the general public is now in a tit for tat mode that seemingly cannot be broken.
So now congress' passing of anything has slowed down to a snail's pace over the past several decades. Trump refused to let a bill pass, and 'ordered' congressional Republicans to not let it pass, not because it wasn't needed. All because he didn't want to let Biden pass anything that would make him look good in his reelection campaign against Trump in the next election cycle. If stupid self serving politicians like Trump are going to pull BS like this, then how can the media and congressional parties complain about this or that being something they cannot stand for. The public has given permission for this. If they as a congress would not sit down at the moment it was needed, and talk about compromise, in order to get a bill that didn't piss either party off terribly, then what can they expect.
The presidency is being pushed in one direction by Congress' inaction, EO's. Whether they are constitutional has to then be pushed by a party that is irritated enough by the seeming unconstitutionality of the EO, must take it to the courts, and even file a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court, to ask that they look at the issue if necessary.(Like Trump's ban on Muslims entry into this country.) Is it proper? Regardless of your answer this is where it is.
Yes, Biden pulled this when he needed it electorally. But he did this when Trump just blocked congress, for Trump's own personal needs, at the moment that the Democratic president and all it's members of congress are willing to give up more ground than they have in a long time, if ever. What can you expect out of a President who needs this personally and knows that the public needs this. The president will act on that self serving need every time, and let the opposing party decide if it is worth taking it to the courts.
And anybody who doesn't agree with this post generally, just pisses me off. That means you are part of the problem. You are letting media influence, peer pressure, obstinance, congressional and political influence, etc., etc., continue to mold you as it has for several years now into part of a public that gives permission to our government for its state of being. It’s hard as heck to enact any kind of change as an individual. But the very first step is recognizing the problem. If you can’t see this, then that’s step 1 of you continuing to be one of those people. Those people that allow from the very start, lack of compromise and congressional obstinance, to be the words of the last two or three decades. That is where large # of these EO's get their genesis, lack of compromise/action in congress.